Steinman v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis
352 F.3d 1101 · 2003
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Edgar v. Avaya, Inc. (2007), Hess v. Reg-Ellen Machine Tool Corp. (2005)
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1107 (§ 407 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Donovan v. Cunningham · Eaves v. Penn · Moench v. Robertson · Kuper v. Iovenko · Fink v. National Savings & Trust Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One can imagine a situation in which a trust-to-trust transfer, or the similar-seeming substitute at issue in this case, would trigger a duty of sale on the part of the trustees, even in the ESOP context where there is no duty to diversify as such. There is still a duty of prudence. 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1)(B) [remaining citations omitted]. And in particular cases it might, as pointed out in In re: Hemmeter, 242 F.3d 1186 ,1191 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001); Kuper v. Iovenko, supra, 66 F.3d at 1458 , and Moench v. Robertson, supra, 62 F.3d at 568 , become a duty to diversify, even though failure to diversify an ESOP’s assets is not imprudence per se, 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(2), as that would bring in the duty to diversify by the back door.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ESOP was [the employees'] principal retirement asset . . . and was entirely invested in the stock of their employer..., and their employer was bought in a stock-for-stock deal—so that all the assets of the ESOP became stock in the acquirer by a company that had a much higher debt-equity ratio than their (former) employer and as a result its stock price was much more volatile and its bankruptcy risk greater. Then, even if the trustees did not predict the company's `impending collapse,' they might be required in the interest of the participants either to diversify the plan's stockholdings or to exchange the...stock for Treasury bills.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the value of any single stock or bond is tied to the fortunes of one company, holding a single kind of stock or bond is very risky. By contrast, people who hold a diverse portfolio of stocks and bonds face less risk because they have only a small stake in each company.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.